"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Tuesday, May 4, 2021

More on evidence and the law - on immigration

I have written 2 short pieces so far about the modern-day woke approach to evidence:

Here is a yet another hilarious woke approach to evidence ("block/bury data and then interpret the lack of it") in a yet another politically explosive area - immigration.

By the way, for those who would want to bash me on this a little bit, that I am "uneducated", that I need to "go educate myself" - I am a graduate of a statistics university - among other things - and was taught how statistics should be obtained and interpreted - and how data can be manipulated.

There is no surge at the border, obviously, and this piece is a way to try to deflect people from even considering the consequences of what is being done to this country and to all of us citizens and taxpayers.

So, let's see how this tremendous piece of "expertise"/evidence have come about.

Remember - there are lies, d***ed lies, and statistics.

It has come - tada! - from the 2020 Census data!

From the same Census where Democrats fought tooth and claw, in courts, too, NOT TO INCLUDE data re immigration status into that Census.

  1. They won in our woke courts on that issue,
  2. the immigration status was not included into the 2020 Census - and, again, tada!
  3. the lack of data (that was blocked from even being collected) is now being used by Democrats to claim that 

A. the US has a bad population decline - the worst in 300 years, mind.


B.  it is due to DECLINE in immigration.

It would have been stand up comedy, had this farce not mean tragic economic consequences for all of us.


And, as to the 2nd point of the article - drop in birthrate.

That is, ladies and gentlemen, a reflection of the young generation's belief in the security of their futures.

Which is very well tied - whether the "woke" want to see it or not - to the immigration surge.

If everything that you are not entitled to, for your own taxes collected from you every year at the threat of a felony conviction, incarceration and loss of voting rights - is given for free to foreigners surging across the border - you have no security in your future, and you are afraid to produce children that you cannot support.

As easy as that.

No comments:

Post a Comment